9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee took up the matter in appeal before the AAC who directed the WTO to work out the value of the property in question on the basis of r. 1BB for both the years and the case the value declared by the assessee is more than that worked out under r. 1BB, then the value declared by the assessee should be accepted. 2. The department is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. After hearing both the parties we see no reason to interfere with the order of the AAC. Similar issue came up before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of WTO vs. Biju Patnaik (1981) 12 TTJ 25 (Del) (SB). For the reasons fully discussed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in that case with which we agree, we uphold the order of the AAC and dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led a revised return on23rd July, 1979. The WTO completed the assessment vide his order dt.31st March, 1981. The assessee, however, did not accept the genuineness of the assessment made on31st March, 1981and wanted to claim refund of self assessment tax already deposited. The WTO, however, informed the assessee that the assessment was actually completed on31st March, 1981and the necessary orders and notices were sent by ordinary post. 5. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the AAC and claimed refund of self assessment tax already deposited as there was no valid assessment in this regard. The AAC partially accepted the claim of the assessee as follow: "3.1. I have considered the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, the order passed by him on the basis of original return cannot be sustained and his order is accordingly set-aside with a direction that he should pass fresh order after considering the revised return." 6. The assessee is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us raising the above grounds. After hearing both the parties at length we are of the view that the limited issue before us is confined to the validity of the assessment made on31st March, 1981on the original return filed by the assessee on1st July, 1976. The answer to the above issue is self evident. Since the parties did not dispute the filing of revised return by the assessee on23rd July, 1979, the assessment order made on the basis of the original return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
